The whole reason that Japanese bars and restaurants need "No Foreigners" signs is because of Negro American servicemen causing trouble; it's more polite than "No Blacks" and the Japanese do like to be diplomatic.

Xenophobia is by definition irrational; there is nothing irrational in prudent avoidance (fear, if you prefer Leftist hyperbolic rhetoric which seeks to portray anything racialist or inherently sensible, as "irrational") of Negroes, on the contrary, it is highly advantageous to survival, prosperity and quality of life.

How can I leave out the ethnic elements of culture? That's like asking me to leave out a hydrogen atom out of a water molecule.

Very. The mindset of the people is corrupt. People always want to get advantage of every situation in a way which requires the less effort.

I thought that was true all around the world?

No, it isn't, otherwise there would be no such concept as impartiality. Is there corruption in low context countries? Of course, but much less so than in high context countries.

Quote:

By the way I still don't get which you consider to be better, high or low context.

Neither is better, or rather, which is better depends upon the context.

Quote:

con·text

/ˈkɒntɛkst/ Show Spelled[kon-tekst] Show IPA–noun 1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

We are dealing with meaning #2 above, the context being whether or not one's social connections matter.

Ordinarily, I would say that life in a low context society is far better than that in a high context society. However, when a low context society is overrun by hordes of people from a high context society, I would say that if the people who have been living a low context life don't dramatically raise the context (become bigoted, show favoritism, engage in discrimination, pass laws in their own favor, reject criticism of their concern for their own existence by those who would stigmatize it as racism and the like) of their social interactions, they are doomed to extinction.

Thus:

no invasion: low context is a better way of life.

invasion via uncontrolled borders(or by any other means): high context wins.

If there is a real war, a shooting war, then the low context society will probably win that sort of conflict, because of the relative lack of social phenomena like nepotism and the existence of a meritocracy. The low context society will be able to field a very well equipped military, the sort of organization which a high context society, as a whole, is unsuited to dealing with.

On the other hand, if the low context society is 'invaded' by a parasitic elite, an elite which forces the borders to go undefended and which causes hordes of aliens to be allowed free entry, then the low context society will be sucked dry of resources as effectively as if a foreign army had been able come in and seize control.

Since there are several types of nation, some of which do not necessarily go along racial lines, I want to know what other elements of culture do you consider strong, in the nationalistic sense.

To clarify what I mean when I talked about my country, I'm talking about the lack of national identity. Some aspects of the culture, most from the black culture are taken as "brazillian culture" but it forces a lot of people, especially whites, to absorb a culture that has nothing to do with them. Nowadays schools are forced to teach african culture and kids are forced to praise it as part of "brazillian culture".

It's like what's happening to america right now where hip-hop is seen as part of american culture, but much worse because brazil never had a good sense of identity, because it was originally a colony of exploitation, not habitation. Which is by the way why there are so many blacks, all coming from slave work force.

Location: Where the Atlantic is in the North and the Pacific in the South.

Posts: 7,465

Re: Black person in Japan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Odhin

To clarify what I mean when I talked about my country, I'm talking about the lack of national identity. Some aspects of the culture, most from the black culture are taken as "brazillian culture" but it forces a lot of people, especially whites, to absorb a culture that has nothing to do with them. Nowadays schools are forced to teach african culture and kids are forced to praise it as part of "brazillian culture".

It's like what's happening to america right now where hip-hop is seen as part of american culture, but much worse because brazil never had a good sense of identity, because it was originally a colony of exploitation, not habitation. Which is by the way why there are so many blacks, all coming from slave work force.

I see what you mean. In school we are taught that Brazil is a country with strong African roots. I am aware that other "whiter countries" in Latin America consider Panama a black country.

Location: Where the Atlantic is in the North and the Pacific in the South.

Posts: 7,465

Re: Black person in Japan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paladino

On the other hand, Whites are quickly to adapt to the new culture, even if is a bad culture (most Whites anyway)

Most Brazilians says the Europeans and Americans are arrogant (Obvious they refer to the Euro-Americans)

But, adapting yourself in another culture, sacrifing your culture even if its the better ones, is in my view a trait of humility.

My experience is that whites do not adapt quickly to a new culture. During the conquest, who learned which language? Of course the indians had to learn the language of the conquerors (that is normal in conquests though). But in present times, Americans here are way less bilingual than Panamanians, they keep their American music, food, and way of dressing (very informal). Americans expect everybody else to adapt. Spaniards never lose their "zzz" accent and they keep their food, promote their culture through their associations, and keep to their customs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deegan

That is a bit of a silly statement - "Foreigners deeply rooted in the fabric of this country" - foreigners, by definition, cannot be "deeply" rooted in any country they are foreign to. Just a comment.

A group of people can embed themselves in the economy, work-force, even politics of another country, yet they never feel a sense of belonging to that country remaining forever foreigners.